Author Topic: Rings......big or small which do you prefer (Read 822 times)

SEMO_HUNTER · « **on:** January 11, 2011, 08:45:00 PM »

Specifically rings on Osage, do you prefer big thick rings or small tight rings?
I've worked with both and both have turned out fine, but I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't like em too thick, but not too skinny either.

Please explain why you like one or the other.

George Tsoukalas · « **Reply #1 on:** January 11, 2011, 09:22:00 PM »

Doesn't matter to me. Jawge

John Scifres · « **Reply #2 on:** January 11, 2011, 09:56:00 PM »

The bows I have made with 1/8" or less rings and a good ratio of summerwood:springwood have been quicker and took less set. I can chase a ring 1/16" or better pretty easy so I'd have to say between 1/16" and 1/8" are my favorite.

vanillabear? · « **Reply #3 on:** January 11, 2011, 10:10:00 PM »

KellyG · « **Reply #4 on:** January 11, 2011, 10:14:00 PM »

As big as tuck tire if I could get it, I dont count I am getting ready to chase my first one. So I want a think bugger so I have a better chance of not cutting thru it.

Pat B · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2011, 10:43:00 PM »

Kelly, we all like big rings for chasing but for building bows it's a different story...for me at least. I like thin ringed osage fine. If I violate the back ring I'll back it with rawhide. I guess like John, 1/16 to 1/8" with good early/late ratio would be about perfect. I've actually never had much choice so I take what I can get.

hova · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2011, 10:44:00 PM »

i like my wood like i like my beaches(censored) , thick an' wide...

-hov

gman.ricky · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2011, 10:44:00 PM »

i like thin rings, seems like they make a quicker, sweet shootin bow, there got more spring. thick rings are a hell of a lot easie to work but take more set like John said.

SEMO_HUNTER · « **Reply #8 on:** January 11, 2011, 10:57:00 PM »

That has kinda been my experience so far.
Thick rings are easy to work with, but the thinner rings seem to make a smoother quicker bow. Less room for error on the thinner rings with the bigger rings toward the belly of the bow.
I'm fine with a 1/16" ring and I have learned just when to stop.

Diamondback59 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2011, 10:58:00 PM »

chris i like em 1/32-1/16 and dark red and heavey wood i think those make the fastest osage bows the denser the bettr for me brock

Walt Francis · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2011, 11:42:00 PM »

I'll take whatever I can get, but like others, prefer about 1/16".

scrub-buster · « **Reply #11 on:** January 12, 2011, 01:50:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pat B:
Kelly, we all like big rings for chasing but for building bows it's a different story...for me at least. I like thin ringed osage fine. If I violate the back ring I'll back it with rawhide. I guess like John, 1/16 to 1/8" with good early/late ratio would be about perfect. I've actually never had much choice so I take what I can get.

Pat, I'm glad to hear that you like the thinner ringed osage :D

KellyG · « **Reply #12 on:** January 12, 2011, 04:49:00 AM »

Someday I hope I can really follow a tite ring but for now truck tire thick I mean super sawpers or 33" mudders.

Cause I am not trying to make the fastest bow or hardest hiting, heck I would settle for 6" of string follow at this point. Just as long as it lauches an arrow 20yrds and can penatrate the chest of a deer I would be happy. sorry for the brief hijack.
Kelly

SEMO_HUNTER · « **Reply #13 on:** January 12, 2011, 07:26:00 AM »

I think you will do just fine Kelly, don't sell yourself short.

Pat B · « **Reply #14 on:** January 12, 2011, 09:24:00 AM »

Again, it all comes down to design. Not only do you have to consider design with different woods but you have to think about the properties of the wood and the ring thickness has some effect on this. For me at least I feel comfortable building narrower osage bows with thinner rings and think they need to be a little wider for the thicker rings. I like a more rounded belly with thin ringed osage but a flatter belly for wider rings.
Little things like this is why I say to let the stave tell you what it wants to be and not necessarily try to make the bow you want with a particular piece of wood you have. Now, this is for stave bows. With boards you still have considerations but they aren't as critical because a board is more uniform.

SEMO_HUNTER · « **Reply #15 on:** January 12, 2011, 10:35:00 AM »

So with that detailed explanation Pat, would you say that a shorter bow would be better with thinner rings, and a longer bow work better with thicker rings? Or vice versa?

Maybe short wide limbs with thicker rings.
Longer bow with narrower limbs thinner rings.

What experience with these two scenerios have you had success with?

I'm working on a short take down version longbow with Osage and can't make up my mind if I want wider flatter limbs with thick or thin rings.
Or narrower limbs with thick or thin rings.

I'm going to keep it under 60" total length. I hoped for more like 54-56" but I don't know if that's possible yet?

Pat B · « **Reply #16 on:** January 12, 2011, 10:51:00 AM »

I make most of my osage bows about 1 3/8" wide at the fades and most are around 60" to 66". If I had choices it would be easier to answer. Most of my osage is relatively thin ringed, the stuff others don't want. d;^) I don't like the idea of a wide limb with real thick rings. I want more than one or two rings in the limbs. If I were going to sinew back an osage bow I would go with a wider limb but with most selfbows I prefer a narrower limb profile.

SEMO_HUNTER · « **Reply #17 on:** January 12, 2011, 10:55:00 AM »

Me too, thanks for the info.

Most of my self bows so far have a gradual taper from 1.5 down to .750 at the nock end.

Roy Steele · « **Reply #18 on:** January 12, 2011, 02:47:00 PM »

With thicker rings means the back of your bows thicker. When building your YOU CAN MAKE MORE MISTAKES And your bow will be fine.
Trees closer to water that have opener spaces grow tall straight have wider rings and less limbs(knots). I believe or I was taught trees that had to fight to grow. Being dry area,wind sweped,fight for the sun. These are thin ringer less earywood are less forgiveing to the bowyer to use. But make much more durable,fast better cast bows.
The trees that are taller,straighter less pin knots. These staves form them take less or no heat. I like thick rings for these reasons. Not for just the thick rings. But if the thin ring staves are nice I don't have a problem with that either. I guess it really dos'nt matter to me.
I always start out with a nice stave. If there's somethong wrong with it. I'm sure theres a bow in it. But I never start out disavanged. And you should'nt if you don't have to. If you don't have to. How many boyers that sell bows start out with unsatsfactory materal.
Sure it's nice to see it you can do it. I use to be just like that.

SEMO_HUNTER · « **Reply #19 on:** January 12, 2011, 03:20:00 PM »

You made a good point Roy. All the trees that I cut are in fairly close proximity to the river that runs around our place, but some of them are inside the flood plain and those grow taller, thicker, and more healthy with wider rings. The ones up on higher ground that grow in rocky soil amonst the cedar trees and are clearly out of the flood plain tend to have tighter rings, are not nearly as tall, or canopies that aren't nearly as thick as the ones growing in the flood plain.

You can also see it in the cedar trees that I have cut down. Good soil, and lots of water will produce more white wood in the cedars that grow really fast, then the ones that grow in rocky ground will have more red wood in the center because they grow alot slower.

Good point, I'm glad you brought that up.

News:

Author Topic: Rings......big or small which do you prefer (Read 822 times)

Users currently browsing this topic: